In this presidential election season, the Iraq war seems to come and go and come back again as the central issue separating the parties. The big question: Does America plan on getting out, and if so, how fast? The Democrats -- Sens. Obama and Clinton -- argue for disengagement with all deliberate speed. Republican Sen. McCain argues for steadfast involvement, at least until some form of stability in Iraq is reached.
These are politicians speaking, and sometimes what they say comes across as shorthand. The Washington Post has just published a couple of columns, diametrically opposed, that argue the respective cases of the parties with depth and nuance.For anybody wanting to strengthen his or her argument in support of a specific candidate's view, or for those honestly looking for a position they can embrace, the columns are recommended reading.
The writers are of a certain reputation. Zbigniew Brzezinski, arguing for a disengagement, in what he calls a "smart way," was national security advisor in the Carter admininistration. He says he backs Obama but speaks in the column for himself.
Taking issue with what he calls Brzezinski's "breezy" argument is Max Boot, senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He advises McCain and points to dangers in an early U.S. military pullout.
Back-to-back, the columns demonstrate how difficult the choice is for America's policy makers. They are worth a careful read.
Misleading Statistic Lets Down Boot's Argument
I am still in the "Go" corner after reading both articles. I will comment on Max Boot's interesting use of statistics though.
He says: "An early American departure is the last thing that most Iraqis or their
elected representatives want. (In a recent ABC/BBC poll only 38 percent of Iraqis said that coalition forces should leave at once.)"
However, on the next poll question (#23) 61% of Iraqis think U.S. Forces presence is making security worse (only 27% think security is being made better). And according to question #21, more Iraqis think the surge has made security "worse"; conditions for political dialogue "worse"; the ability of the Iraqi govt to carry out it's work "worse"; and the pace of economic development "worse" rather than "better" or "had no effect."
And Question 33: "If the American forces left the country entirely, do you
think the security situation in Iraq overall would become better, become
worse, or remain the same?" "Better" came in as the winner at 46% and
"worse" at 29%.
The bottom line with Boot's statistics is that they are cherry picked.
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
Here is another take on the poll from the BBC:
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
More than 2,000 Iraqis were questioned in all 18 provinces
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.
The survey for the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified.
This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared with 50% for Shia.
The findings come as the top US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, prepares to address Congress.
He and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are due to testify about the effects of the surge and the current situation in Iraq.
The poll suggests that the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003, says BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs.
Full Article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983841.stm